CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[PratchettFan]

Well I disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that point. I am bored with arguing it so let's just agree to disagree. There are sufficient others who do understand the concept of unalienable rights that I think we can have a productive discussion on how best to recognize and secure those with new wording that removes a lot of the ability to interpret the Constitution in more than one way.

Wrestling over definitions does get boring. And it's further frustrated when one party won't at least recognize the other's definition - even if they disagree that it was the intended meaning. I think the real disagreement, when it comes to the definition of 'inalienable' is what it means to 'alienate' a right.

PratchettFan - I hope you'll try to at least comprehend what we're saying, even if you don't think its what Jefferson intended. What we're saying is that 'inalienable' doesn't mean it can't be violated, or temporarily impeded. Obviously other people can temporarily inhibit your freedom. But if you can still exercise a freedom when no one is inhibiting it - that's 'inalienable'. If you can, if you care to understand what we're getting at here, think of it this way: Any "right" that you can exercise if no one else is around is an "inalienable" right. Rights that require the active participation of others aren't. So freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, free will in general, are inalienable capacities of human existence.

In my view, Jefferson was characterizing, in fact limiting, the kinds of rights government should secure - not all rights, but the inalienable rights that we have even if no one else is around. Government should strive allow us to go from that state of perfect freedom, when we're alone, and enter into social interactions retaining as much of that innate freedom as possible.

I *think* I understand the view that PratchettFan and others are arguing for. They seem to be seeing any freedom that can be violated as 'alienable'. And of course, just about any freedom can be violated - certainly by killing a person. From that perspective, there are no such things as inalienable rights. And they find it puzzling that people can insist that some rights are inalienable. But I think they're missing the point of the 'inalienable' descriptor. It's not saying there's anything magical about those rights that prevents them from being violated. It's just saying that they require be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

The problem is that there are different kinds of rights. There are human rights that we recognize as decent human beings. There are Constitutional rights that should be inviolable by either the courts or actions of the states such as the right to vote for those who will represent us in the federal government. And there are certain functional legal rights enacted by the states.

Unalienable rights as the Founders saw unalienable righnts are something different from all of these.

If what you say is true, then why did the Founders omit these "unalienable rights" from the only document which actually mattered?

 

[PratchettFan]

Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree on the concept of unalienable rights for the moment as I think discussion of other issues might have a bearing on the mythical final vote when the 'new and improved' Constitution is ready to be signed and sent out for ratification.

Another approach would be whether we want a strong central government, even to the point that state and local governments are dissolved--at least one of us has proposed this--

or whether we want to retain the current system that is regularly overridden by the federal government at will--

or whether we want a federal system as the Founders envisioned it.

Madison explained the difference thusly (paraphrased):

The idea of a national government presumes authority over the individual citizens with authority vested in a national legislature. Any local administrative structures are directed and subject to authority of the central government. This places all power in the hands of a very few.

In a federal system, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated responsibilities only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other matters.

So which system do you want for the American people?

If it is one or the other, I'll take the first one. We tried the second and it doesn't work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be."

This is why both major parties are statist progressive parties, despite the rhetoric. They both want to control the national government.

What? Now you're pretending to be a libertarian?

dblack, quit acting confused. My views have always been clear.

Both parties have segued into this theme over a forty year period so that by 1952 they have not differed much matters of national power and its use.

One of the problems with confronting them is that libertarianism is shatter and splattered with hack partisan views.

 

[PratchettFan]

Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree on the concept of unalienable rights for the moment as I think discussion of other issues might have a bearing on the mythical final vote when the 'new and improved' Constitution is ready to be signed and sent out for ratification.

I don't know. I think resolving that issue is key, because it's central to the concept of limited government. Indeed, I suspect the reason why some are so reluctant to even recognize the concept is because they don't want to see government limited in that way.

Let's try it this way. The right to free speech means that I can go into the public forum and proclaim that I think only women between the ages of 22 and 31 should be allowed the vote or hold public office. I cannot be prosecuted for this because of the first amendment, even if the government officials would love to do it. I cannot, however, start tossing guns into the crowd and scream "Let's go kill them all!!!" That is incitement to riot and insurrection and the first amendment does not protect me for it.

Now, name me something specific you think is an inalienable right. Not this generic thing about not affecting someone else, but a specific action you think would fall under that phrase.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let's go to something we can all relate to. Would you or would you not favor a mandatory seat belt law imposed at the federal level? Why or why not?

How would such a law be enforced at the federal level? More importantly if we go to a national form of government and do away with the state and city governments?

I'm torn on seat belt laws, as I am helmet laws, but certainly the government is within its purviews to enact them. So if we are going to have them, it should be national. The roads in one part of the nation don't suddenly become less hazardous because you cross an imaginary line. They would be enforced exactly as they are currently being enforced. Why would you think there would be a change?

 

[PratchettFan]

Why should the federal government be given authority to mandate that all automobiles manufactured or sold in America must be equipped with seat belts? As would be the case with requiring UL labels on electrical apparatus, are such laws justified in the interest of the general welfare?

South Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine and Kentucky do not have seat belt laws, not because they oppose seat belts, but because they have ruled that each person has the right to choose what is and is not in his/her own self interest in such matters just as each person has the right to choose to do sky diving or hang gliding or rock climbing or surfing giant waves etc. All 50 states, however, do require safety restraints for children in vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not require safety helmets for adults riding motorcycles but do require them for children.

Why not federal mandates that all cars be equipped with speed governors? A few legislators have proposed that rear view cameras in all cars be made mandatory.

The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be.

Virginia requires you wear a seatbelt. Why is that not arbitrary control while it is arbitrary control if the feds do it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's go to something we can all relate to. Would you or would you not favor a mandatory seat belt law imposed at the federal level? Why or why not?
How would such a law be enforced at the federal level? More importantly if we go to a national form of government and do away with the state and city governments?

I'm torn on seat belt laws, as I am helmet laws, but certainly the government is within its purviews to enact them. So if we are going to have them, it should be national. The roads in one part of the nation don't suddenly become less hazardous because you cross an imaginary line. They would be enforced exactly as they are currently being enforced. Why would you think there would be a change?

Traffic laws are state perview as he federal government has no power to create them -- because all roads are state roads.
The federal government had to threaten to withhold the money for highway projects from the state in order to achieve a 55mph national speed limit; this is why.
Further, the federal government cannot force state governments to enforce state laws, and so unless the federal government creates a national highway patrol, federal seat belt helmet and speed limit laws may very well go unenforced.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree on the concept of unalienable rights for the moment as I think discussion of other issues might have a bearing on the mythical final vote when the 'new and improved' Constitution is ready to be signed and sent out for ratification.

I don't know. I think resolving that issue is key, because it's central to the concept of limited government. Indeed, I suspect the reason why some are so reluctant to even recognize the concept is because they don't want to see government limited in that way.

Let's try it this way. The right to free speech means that I can go into the public forum and proclaim that I think only women between the ages of 22 and 31 should be allowed the vote or hold public office. I cannot be prosecuted for this because of the first amendment, even if the government officials would love to do it. I cannot, however, start tossing guns into the crowd and scream "Let's go kill them all!!!" That is incitement to riot and insurrection and the first amendment does not protect me for it.

The former is part of the right o free speech and is alienable - the government cannot prevent you from doing this, absent some other circumstance.
The latter is not part of the right to free speech and can be restristec/prohibited w/o compromising your inalieneable right to free speech.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let's go to something we can all relate to. Would you or would you not favor a mandatory seat belt law imposed at the federal level? Why or why not?
How would such a law be enforced at the federal level? More importantly if we go to a national form of government and do away with the state and city governments?

I'm torn on seat belt laws, as I am helmet laws, but certainly the government is within its purviews to enact them. So if we are going to have them, it should be national. The roads in one part of the nation don't suddenly become less hazardous because you cross an imaginary line. They would be enforced exactly as they are currently being enforced. Why would you think there would be a change?

Traffic laws are state perview as he federal government has no power to create them -- because all roads are state roads.
The federal government had to threaten to withhold the money for highway projects from the state in order to achieve a 55mph national speed limit; this is why.
Further, the federal government cannot force state governments to enforce state laws, and so unless the federal government creates a national highway patrol, federal seat belt helmet and speed limit laws may very well go unenforced.

Sounds like we need a federal highway patrol then. Excellent suggestion.

 

[PratchettFan]

Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree on the concept of unalienable rights for the moment as I think discussion of other issues might have a bearing on the mythical final vote when the 'new and improved' Constitution is ready to be signed and sent out for ratification.

I don't know. I think resolving that issue is key, because it's central to the concept of limited government. Indeed, I suspect the reason why some are so reluctant to even recognize the concept is because they don't want to see government limited in that way.

Let's try it this way. The right to free speech means that I can go into the public forum and proclaim that I think only women between the ages of 22 and 31 should be allowed the vote or hold public office. I cannot be prosecuted for this because of the first amendment, even if the government officials would love to do it. I cannot, however, start tossing guns into the crowd and scream "Let's go kill them all!!!" That is incitement to riot and insurrection and the first amendment does not protect me for it.

The former is part of the right o free speech and is alienable - the government cannot prevent you from doing this, absent some other circumstance.
The latter is not part of the right to free speech and can be restristec/prohibited w/o compromising your inalieneable right to free speech.

All you are saying is that up to the point the government does restrict your right to free speech, it is inalienable. A pointless adjective. Either you have the right or you do not.

 

[dblack]

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

Rights don't stand on their own. If you are actually looking to create a new foundation of government then it should be based upon a realistic view of human society, not an ideological fantasy. There is not right to healthcare, however it is certainly appropriate for the government to insure healthcare is available to its citizens. Providing services to the citizenry is one of the major purposes of government.

But do you see any fundamental distinction between those types of "rights"? That's the important piece of this. You're focused on whether the term "right" refers to some that ought to be protect vs something thats is protected, and that's not really the point of what we're talking about.

"There is not right to healthcare, however it is certainly appropriate for the government to insure healthcare is available to its citizens."

Why do you say this? Should there be a 'right to healthcare'? If society decided it should be thus, would there be a right to healthcare? And if so, would you see any difference between that kind of right and a right like freedom of speech? Please try to answer. I'm not trying to 'trap' you, and I'm not playing any kind of rhetorical game here. Just trying to communicate the ideas clearly, because I sense you really don't understand what we're saying.

There is a distinction between a right and a benefit. You have the right to speak your mind, you don't have the right to travel by car - but does that mean it isn't appropriate for the government to build highways? Building highways is a benefit. So no, there is no right to healthcare and there should not be. But it is appropriate for the government to insure it is provided. This falls under the concept of providing for the general welfare.

Alright, that might be the alternate terminology Foxfyre was suggesting. We would then be arguing for the position that the primary purpose of government, the reason we create it in the first place is to protect our rights.

That's not to say we can't or shouldn't use government to provide benefits. Some of that is built into the Constitution itself (post office, minting money, etc..). But the primary purpose of government should remain the protection of individual rights, and that goal should not be compromised in the name of providing benefits

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's go to something we can all relate to. Would you or would you not favor a mandatory seat belt law imposed at the federal level? Why or why not?
How would such a law be enforced at the federal level? More importantly if we go to a national form of government and do away with the state and city governments?

I'm torn on seat belt laws, as I am helmet laws, but certainly the government is within its purviews to enact them. So if we are going to have them, it should be national. The roads in one part of the nation don't suddenly become less hazardous because you cross an imaginary line. They would be enforced exactly as they are currently being enforced. Why would you think there would be a change?

Traffic laws are state perview as he federal government has no power to create them -- because all roads are state roads.
The federal government had to threaten to withhold the money for highway projects from the state in order to achieve a 55mph national speed limit; this is why.
Further, the federal government cannot force state governments to enforce state laws, and so unless the federal government creates a national highway patrol, federal seat belt helmet and speed limit laws may very well go unenforced.

Sounds like we need a federal highway patrol then. Excellent suggestion.

No. It doesn't. There's no reason to have it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree on the concept of unalienable rights for the moment as I think discussion of other issues might have a bearing on the mythical final vote when the 'new and improved' Constitution is ready to be signed and sent out for ratification.

I don't know. I think resolving that issue is key, because it's central to the concept of limited government. Indeed, I suspect the reason why some are so reluctant to even recognize the concept is because they don't want to see government limited in that way.

Let's try it this way. The right to free speech means that I can go into the public forum and proclaim that I think only women between the ages of 22 and 31 should be allowed the vote or hold public office. I cannot be prosecuted for this because of the first amendment, even if the government officials would love to do it. I cannot, however, start tossing guns into the crowd and scream "Let's go kill them all!!!" That is incitement to riot and insurrection and the first amendment does not protect me for it.

The former is part of the right o free speech and is alienable - the government cannot prevent you from doing this, absent some other circumstance.
The latter is not part of the right to free speech and can be restristec/prohibited w/o compromising your inalieneable right to free speech.

All you are saying is that up to the point the government does restrict your right to free speech, it is inalienable.

No. The right to free speech does not include inciting a riot, and so restrictions on inciting a riot have bearing on the inalienability of the right to free speech.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What has become patently obvious is that there is no consensus on what should be in a new constitution because there is no willingness to look for rational workable compromises that would deal with the existing problems without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

A new constitution would still have to deal with the existing government that we have in place now. Realistically it is not possible to pull the plug on the Social Security administration, the FDA, the FBI, the DOJ and all the rest of the alphabet soup of agencies that perform the tasks of administering this nation today.

Since neither the OP nor the Libertarians have the slightest interest in anything other than their own pet ideas that cannot stand up to even the most basic scrutiny this entire thread has become a complete and utter waste of time since nothing of any any value will come of it without a willingness to compromise on difficult issues.

The original founding fathers had to deal with the serious issue of how to handle slavery and still put together a workable constitution. There is no one of their caliber in this thread, myself included.

So this is an exercise in futility and I see no point in wasting any further time with those whose minds were made up before they ever made their original post in this thread.

Have a nice day.

 

[dblack]

What has become patently obvious is that there is no consensus on what should be in a new constitution because there is no willingness to look for rational workable compromises that would deal with the existing problems without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

A new constitution would still have to deal with the existing government that we have in place now. Realistically it is not possible to pull the plug on the Social Security administration, the FDA, the FBI, the DOJ and all the rest of the alphabet soup of agencies that perform the tasks of administering this nation today.

Since neither the OP nor the Libertarians have the slightest interest in anything other than their own pet ideas that cannot stand up to even the most basic scrutiny this entire thread has become a complete and utter waste of time since nothing of any any value will come of it without a willingness to compromise on difficult issues.

The original founding fathers had to deal with the serious issue of how to handle slavery and still put together a workable constitution. There is no one of their caliber in this thread, myself included.

So this is an exercise in futility and I see no point in wasting any further time with those whose minds were made up before they ever made their original post in this thread.

Have a nice day.

Nonsense. There's plenty of consensus here. And compromise. But if you don't wish to be part of it, by all means, move along.

 

[Votto]

Probably most USMB members have some familiarity with at least some of the U.S. Constitution and most have strong opinions about what the Constitution does and does not protect/provide/accomplish.

It might be an interesting discussion to have our own little Constitutional convention here and discuss what we would want to retain and what we would change of the original Constitution if the people decided to write a new one.

For instance, the Preamble of the Original Constitution is this:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The problem with the wording, however descriptive and elegant, is that we might have trouble in agreeing on what a 'more perfect union' is, what components of justice the federal government should be involved in, or what constitutes 'domestic tranquility'. Certainly there are broad disputes as to what is included in the 'general welfare' and strong opposing views on what 'blessings of liberty' actually are.

My proposal for a preamble for a new constitution would be something more like this:

We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states, provide for the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.​

What would you want a new Constitution for the United State of America to accomplish that the old one does not seem to do?

Why amend the Constitution when the one we have now is ignored?

 

[dblack]

Probably most USMB members have some familiarity with at least some of the U.S. Constitution and most have strong opinions about what the Constitution does and does not protect/provide/accomplish.

It might be an interesting discussion to have our own little Constitutional convention here and discuss what we would want to retain and what we would change of the original Constitution if the people decided to write a new one.

For instance, the Preamble of the Original Constitution is this:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The problem with the wording, however descriptive and elegant, is that we might have trouble in agreeing on what a 'more perfect union' is, what components of justice the federal government should be involved in, or what constitutes 'domestic tranquility'. Certainly there are broad disputes as to what is included in the 'general welfare' and strong opposing views on what 'blessings of liberty' actually are.

My proposal for a preamble for a new constitution would be something more like this:

We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states, provide for the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.​

What would you want a new Constitution for the United State of America to accomplish that the old one does not seem to do?

Why amend the Constitution when the one we have now is ignored?

Because it's ignored. And it's ignored because there isn't a clear consensus on what it means. The process of creating a new Constitution would force us to find that consensus and offer the opportunity to clarify its meaning.

 

[PratchettFan]

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

Rights don't stand on their own. If you are actually looking to create a new foundation of government then it should be based upon a realistic view of human society, not an ideological fantasy. There is not right to healthcare, however it is certainly appropriate for the government to insure healthcare is available to its citizens. Providing services to the citizenry is one of the major purposes of government.

But do you see any fundamental distinction between those types of "rights"? That's the important piece of this. You're focused on whether the term "right" refers to some that ought to be protect vs something thats is protected, and that's not really the point of what we're talking about.

"There is not right to healthcare, however it is certainly appropriate for the government to insure healthcare is available to its citizens."

Why do you say this? Should there be a 'right to healthcare'? If society decided it should be thus, would there be a right to healthcare? And if so, would you see any difference between that kind of right and a right like freedom of speech? Please try to answer. I'm not trying to 'trap' you, and I'm not playing any kind of rhetorical game here. Just trying to communicate the ideas clearly, because I sense you really don't understand what we're saying.

There is a distinction between a right and a benefit. You have the right to speak your mind, you don't have the right to travel by car - but does that mean it isn't appropriate for the government to build highways? Building highways is a benefit. So no, there is no right to healthcare and there should not be. But it is appropriate for the government to insure it is provided. This falls under the concept of providing for the general welfare.

Alright, that might be the alternate terminology Foxfyre was suggesting. We would then be arguing for the position that the primary purpose of government, the reason we create it in the first place is to protect our rights.

That's not to say we can't or shouldn't use government to provide benefits. Some of that is built into the Constitution itself (post office, minting money, etc..). But the primary purpose of government should remain the protection of individual rights, and that goal should not be compromised in the name of providing benefits

The primary purpose of government is to allow people to live together in some semblance of peace and order. To the extent an individuals rights do not conflict with that purpose, those rights should be protected. Thus you have the right to speak your mind, you do not have the right to incite insurrection because while speech the latter conflicts with the primary purpose. You have the right to personal property, but if it is to the benefit of the society that property can be taken from you - such as to build a sewer system or a highway.

It is nice to talk about personal rights, but without society those rights do not exist. The cost of having liberty is the responsibility to insure the health of the society as a whole. If one is not willing to accept that responsibility, they do not deserve the rights.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let's go to something we can all relate to. Would you or would you not favor a mandatory seat belt law imposed at the federal level? Why or why not?
How would such a law be enforced at the federal level? More importantly if we go to a national form of government and do away with the state and city governments?

I'm torn on seat belt laws, as I am helmet laws, but certainly the government is within its purviews to enact them. So if we are going to have them, it should be national. The roads in one part of the nation don't suddenly become less hazardous because you cross an imaginary line. They would be enforced exactly as they are currently being enforced. Why would you think there would be a change?

Traffic laws are state perview as he federal government has no power to create them -- because all roads are state roads.
The federal government had to threaten to withhold the money for highway projects from the state in order to achieve a 55mph national speed limit; this is why.
Further, the federal government cannot force state governments to enforce state laws, and so unless the federal government creates a national highway patrol, federal seat belt helmet and speed limit laws may very well go unenforced.

Sounds like we need a federal highway patrol then. Excellent suggestion.

No. It doesn't. There's no reason to have it.

If law enforcement officials are unwilling to do their job, then there is a reason.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Probably most USMB members have some familiarity with at least some of the U.S. Constitution and most have strong opinions about what the Constitution does and does not protect/provide/accomplish.

It might be an interesting discussion to have our own little Constitutional convention here and discuss what we would want to retain and what we would change of the original Constitution if the people decided to write a new one.

For instance, the Preamble of the Original Constitution is this:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The problem with the wording, however descriptive and elegant, is that we might have trouble in agreeing on what a 'more perfect union' is, what components of justice the federal government should be involved in, or what constitutes 'domestic tranquility'. Certainly there are broad disputes as to what is included in the 'general welfare' and strong opposing views on what 'blessings of liberty' actually are.

My proposal for a preamble for a new constitution would be something more like this:

We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states, provide for the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.​

What would you want a new Constitution for the United State of America to accomplish that the old one does not seem to do?

Why amend the Constitution when the one we have now is ignored?

Because it's ignored. And it's ignored because there isn't a clear consensus on what it means. The process of creating a new Constitution would force us to find that consensus and offer the opportunity to clarify its meaning.

Ironic given that you just made this specious claim in your preceding post;

"There's plenty of consensus here. And compromise."

So either you are lying in this post or the prior one. Either way makes no difference. You have no honest desire to seek a consensus since you refuse to debate your own fallacious allegations by your own admission.